Barry v. McTaggart, Misc. No. 371.
| Citation | 351 F.2d 944 |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 371. |
| Parties | Loren E. BARRY, Petitioner, v. Ward McTAGGART, Respondent. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
Loren E. Barry, pro se.
No response was made on behalf of appellee.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT and GIBSON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, Loren E. Barry, is presently in custody of the sheriff of Furnas County, Nebraska, and confined to the county jail, under state charges of obtaining property by false pretenses and issuing insufficient funds checks.
On August 20, 1965, he was found guilty of civil contempt by the Federal District Court "In the Matter of Midwest DeLux Food Company, a corporation, Bankrupt, No. B16221L." This finding of civil contempt was based on a show cause order of the referee in bankruptcy in the bankrupt case, which show cause order brought into issue the failure of petitioner to comply with previous orders of the Bankruptcy Court directing defendant to appear at hearings, to file a list of creditors, and other pertinent information desired by the Bankruptcy Court. The District Court, finding petitioner guilty of civil contempt, fined him $300 and costs, directed him "to file herewith a schedule of bankrupt's property and a list of all bankrupt's creditors and their addresses under oath", and committed him to the custody of the United States Marshal until the fine and costs are paid and the schedules and lists filed. The contempt order further said: "if said matters are complied with before September 1, 1965 this order for said Loren Barry to be placed in custody shall be suspended."
Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Federal District Court under date of September 14, 1965, in which he requested the Court to issue a temporary restraining order, restraining state court proceedings against him until his release on habeas corpus "or until such time as the writ has been denied in the Supreme Court of the United States." Apparently the state proceedings are still pending against him and have not been concluded. This application for the writ was denied by Judge Van Pelt under date of September 15, 1965 because "(1) petitioner had not exhausted his state court remedies, (2) he did not set forth a claim upon which relief could be granted at this time, and (3) petitioner is not at this time serving the sentence of this Court imposed in the contempt proceedings."
On September 30, 1965, petitioner filed a "notice of his intention to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of September 15, 1965, eviding (sic) his application of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barry v. Sigler
...grounds. In August 1965, Judge Van Pelt held appellant guilty of civil contempt involving a bankruptcy proceeding. See Barry v. McTaggart, 8 Cir. 1965, 351 F.2d 944. This fact is first raised upon appellant's petition for a certificate of probable cause to the district court. The intended i......
-
Cheek v. Swenson
...corpus in this court. Worley v. Swenson, 386 F.2d 186 (8th Cir. 1968); Glenn v. Ciccone, 370 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1966); Barry v. McTaggart, 351 F.2d 944 (8th Cir. 1965). It is petitioner's contention, however, that there are exceptional circumstances in his case which entitle him to the reli......
-
Application of Nielson, 19979.
...not having exhausted his state remedies, the relief by writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 is not available. Barry v. McTaggart, 8 Cir., 351 F.2d 944; Kinnell v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 384 F.2d 811, cert. den. 390 U.S. 999, 88 S.Ct. 1205, 20 L.Ed.2d The district court correctly denied ......